Trek Madone 2008



On Jul 4, 2:25 pm, Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On Jul 4, 8:17 am, John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 03 Jul 2007 18:49:41 -0700, "Ozark Bicycle" wrote:
> > >You're right! That's very important to the members of Team Wannabe.

>
> > What is it that causes you to have such an obsession with "wannabes"?
> > Were you one? Or were you a "nevercould" or something?

>
> > Please, show us a picture of you and your bike.

>
> There is nothing wrong with bicycle racing and racing bikes. However,
> it is silly to believe that a racing bicycle is the best choice for
> any use but racing or training for racing.
>
> Unfortunately, due to marketing and hype, people want racing bicycles,
> when they would be better off on a road bicycle with a slightly longer
> wheelbase, clearance for reasonable tires (e.g. 28-mm width and
> fenders) and slightly higher handlebars (so the drops are more
> useable). A less finicky 8-speed drivetrain is plenty of ratios for
> 99% of non-racers (especially when combined with a triple crank).
>
> Yet, go into an LBS. How many road bikes like this will you find (and
> how many shop employees that understand why such bikes are desirable
> and better than racing bicycles for non racing use)?
>
> --
> Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
> The weather is here, wish you were beautiful




The desire for racing bikes make sense. people join the sport for
fitness more than for leisure. The idea is that to get fit, you get
the equipment that will make you fit, and people wanna look like Lance
armstrong. so, they wanna ride what will make people look slim and
fit.

If bicycles were promoted for leisure, people woulndt get into the
sport that much.
On the otehr hand, I think the promotion of bicycles for fitness, ie,
what people consider racing, will lead some to reallize that leisure
cycling is a great thing to do, and eventually many will move towards
buying more user freindly bikes.

A lot of us who now are critical of the planned obsolence designs and
the hypper geek "we will make u faster" technology, started at some
point. Many of us started reading winning magazine and dreaming of
owning a sleek italian columbus sl machine with campy sr. after many
years we realized that an asian made bike with tange and ishiwata
tubing and 600 components made as much or more sense. Yet, we all
started somewhere.

I think that the big money carze into cycling is good. if people can
afford madonnes and are buying them, let them do that. there is more
cycling and more lbs now in my community than there were before. and
they are doing well because of the madones and all the marketin bs.

Andres
 
On Jul 5, 12:13 am, Ryan Cousineau <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Steve Gravrock <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 2007-07-05, Hank Wirtz <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On Jul 4, 7:23 pm, Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
> > ><[email protected]> wrote:
> > >> On Jul 4, 8:30 pm, Hank Wirtz wrote:

>
> > >> > You just described the Trek Pilot 1.0.

>
> > >> >http://www2.trekbikes.com/bikes/bike.php?bikeid=1402000&f=4

>
> > >> Replace the carbon fiber composite fork and seat post with steel and
> > >> aluminium alloy, the brifters with bar-ends and make the top tube
> > >> horizontal and Trek would have it about right.

>
> > > Why make the TT horizontal? The point of the upsloping top tube is to
> > > get the bars higher.

>
> > There are some folks on RBT who argue that sloping top tubes are an
> > attempt by manufacturers to save money by putting people on smaller
> > frames than normal and thus carry fewer sizes. The fact that Trek and
> > its competitors obviously aren't doing that with bikes like the Pilot
> > doesn't carry much weight.

>
> > In a doubtless futile attempt to put a stop to that argument before it
> > begins, I'll post a picture of my Pilot and a version that I edited to
> > have a level top tube:

>
> > <http://www.panix.com/~sdg/usenet/pilot-loaded.jpg>
> > <http://www.panix.com/~sdg/usenet/pilot-level-top-tube.jpg>

>
> > Note the long head tube extension required to get the same handlebar
> > height with a level top tube.

>
> In fairness to the level-tube crowd, they would have you raise the rear
> of the tube rather than drop the front of the tube.
>
> This compromises standover but gives the benefit of more room inside the
> triangle, which, as your bike illustrates, would make getting your water
> bottles out a lot easier.
>
> Of course, I like the reduced number of frame sizes compact requires,
> because it increases the liquidity of the used market for bikes!
>
> --
> Ryan Cousineau [email protected]://www.wiredcola.com/
> "I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
> to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos


compact frame technology is good stuff. I am not an embracer of new
****, and all my bikes happen to be horizontal tube bikes. However,
semi compact design is still a good idea in my opinion. It allows good
clearance between crotch and top tube. This is good for off roading.

it also allows for people to find a bike with a high enough headtube
to get the bars pretty comfortable and enough clearance. So what if
bike makers save money making less frames. Specialized still makes
tons of sizes and makes compact frames.

compact frames allow a greater range of fit for people with short legs
and longer torsos.

most horizontal tube bikes are designed for people with racing bodies.
ie long legs, long arms and short torsos.

While I am critical of nonesensical progress, I don't dismiss
everything.

Andres
 
On Jul 4, 8:49 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > There is nothing wrong with bicycle racing and racing bikes. However,
> > it is silly to believe that a racing bicycle is the best choice for
> > any use but racing or training for racing.

>
> > Unfortunately, due to marketing and hype, people want racing bicycles,
> > when they would be better off on a road bicycle with a slightly longer
> > wheelbase, clearance for reasonable tires (e.g. 28-mm width and
> > fenders) and slightly higher handlebars (so the drops are more
> > useable). A less finicky 8-speed drivetrain is plenty of ratios for
> > 99% of non-racers (especially when combined with a triple crank).

>
> A bit longer wheelbase? Trek still uses 412mm chainstays, a good
> half-centimeter longer than many, a full centimeter longer than some (and
> good grief, there are even some running 395mm for reasons unfathomable).
>
> 28mm tires? You can fit those to the '08 Madone, or any of the Pilot series,
> which include carbon fiber as well as aluminum frames. Fenders? You can run
> fenders on an '08 Madone with a 25, but not a 28c tire. For any of the
> Pilots, you can run fenders plus 28c, maybe even 32c.
>
> Higher bars? Again, the '08 Madone offers this (in the "Performance" frame,
> which is 30mm higher at the front end than the otherwise-identical "Pro"
> version). And, again, any of the Pilot series.
>
> Less finicky 8-speed drivetrain? Whom are you kidding? Have you worked in a
> shop? Shimano has made substantial improvements over the years to shifting,
> and newer 9-speed levers are much superior to anything they did with 8.
> Perfect? No. But there is nothing to recommend an 8-speed drivetrain over 9,
> in terms of either durability or ease of shifting or setup.


Well ya know Mike, I do work in a shop and 7400(DA 8s) and
6400(Ultegra 8s) STI was much more relaible than 9s. Square Taper BBs
were much more reliable than Octalink and more available today(adios
6500/6503 BBs, STI). Setup was a wash..either was easy, much easier
than shimano 10s BTW.

I won't argue
> that 24 speeds isn't enough. But the less finicky part about 8-speed STI
> drivetrains simply isn't true.
>
> > Yet, go into an LBS. How many road bikes like this will you find (and
> > how many shop employees that understand why such bikes are desirable
> > and better than racing bicycles for non racing use)?

>
> Guess it depends which shop you go into.
>
> Having said all that, I think you overstate the disadvantages to a "racing"
> bike. Beyond the ability to winterize one, a "racing" bike can provide a
> fun, reliable, stable and efficient platform for perhaps the majority of
> cyclists. Even credit-card touring is something that can be done on a
> "racing" bike. And the way most people ride... fair-weather cyclists,
> carrying nothing with them that won't fit in a jersey pocket or small seat
> pack... unless they're planning to ride on nasty roads, what's the big deal?
>
> --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReactionBicycles.com


I think the big deal is that some of these wunderbikes, as they get
sold to great big cyclists, is that they are not going to be reliable,
then the gent, after visiting the bike shop for the umpteenth time to
get these light wheels trued, hangs his bike up and goes back to golf.
I think the sales staff(untrained and poor as they are at most bike
shops) is the issue, and the 15 pound bikes they sell to the wrong
riders make the problem even worse. A bit of reality would be nice and
if the bike doesn't fit and isn't appropriate, the sales grommet needs
to say so.
 
On Jul 4, 8:57 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Once you play with one, you'll wonder why it wasn't done years ago. The
> >> bearings literally drop in. No force. No special tools needed. Take your
> >> crankset out of the bike, replace the bearings, reinstall with only a 5mm
> >> allen tool (for a Shimano crank). 5 minutes, seriously. This technology
> >> will
> >> likely migrate downward and laterally; I see it as an even bigger
> >> advantage
> >> for mountain bikes than for road.

>
> >> --Mike--
> >> Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReaction.com

>
> > BUT I have always been chagrined about a frame maker that takes
> > decisions away from the consumer. As long as a bicycle frame is
> > something you hang components onto, it should be something that I can
> > hang any component onto. Why when we order Waterfords, we still ask
> > for DT shifter bosses and clamp on fders. Trek(and others like Cervelo
> > and Pinarello) can point and talk about the superiority of this and
> > that, it really means they want you to buy the Bontrager/shimano
> > equipped complete bicycle, PLEASE ask for no sustitutions. Any more
> > than the Toyota dealer wants you to ask for Contiental tires.

>
> I think you've answered your own question. Trek isn't producing the new
> bikes for the very tiny subset of the market that wants to mix & match
> without limitation. That's a legit market, but nothing Trek does with the
> new Madone is going to threaten your ability to find framesets to serve that
> market.
>
> At least, since this is coming from Trek, one doesn't have to be concerned
> that five years down the road buyers will be hosed if the platform is yanked
> or Trek were to go out of business. As long as Trek is in business, they
> support whatever product they've made in the past, sometimes to
> extraordinary ends. If they were to go out of business, the sheer volume of
> product out there would make it very likely someone would step up to the
> plate to provide parts for customers.
>
> But seriously, your comment about buying a Toyota with Continental tires
> pretty much nails it. The main difference would be that many LBSs would go
> to some effort to try and accomodate a customer's request, if possible. But
> Trek themselves? They're on record stating that they intend to support all
> popular pipe-style cranks, including those not offered as an option on a
> stock bike. But they're not going to go out of their way to encourage the
> sort of thing that you (or sometimes I) do with mixing & matching a complete
> custom bike from the brand of spokes on up.


Gent has a 2006 Record triple group on his old steel bike. Wants the
new Madone..this is not a fringe rider, Campagnolo sold many triple
Record/Chorus/Centaur cranks and like me, may not want a plastic, made
off shore triple crank in his new bike. Sooo, he'll trundle down the
road and get a Specializedgiantscott instead.
>
> --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReactionBicycles.com
>
> "Qui si parla Campagnolo" <[email protected]> wrote in messagenews:[email protected]...
>
> > On Jul 3, 7:56 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> > Geez, what is the advantage, aside from saving a little weight (little
> >> > enough so as not to be an actual issue to a recreational cyclist,
> >> > which is where most of these will be sold), of eliminating a threaded
> >> > interface that also accepts other BB designs?

>
> >> Once you play with one, you'll wonder why it wasn't done years ago. The
> >> bearings literally drop in. No force. No special tools needed. Take your
> >> crankset out of the bike, replace the bearings, reinstall with only a 5mm
> >> allen tool (for a Shimano crank). 5 minutes, seriously. This technology
> >> will
> >> likely migrate downward and laterally; I see it as an even bigger
> >> advantage
> >> for mountain bikes than for road.

>
> >> --Mike--
> >> Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReaction.com

>
> > BUT I have always been chagrined about a frame maker that takes
> > decisions away from the consumer. As long as a bicycle frame is
> > something you hang components onto, it should be something that I can
> > hang any component onto. Why when we order Waterfords, we still ask
> > for DT shifter bosses and clamp on fders. Trek(and others like Cervelo
> > and Pinarello) can point and talk about the superiority of this and
> > that, it really means they want you to buy the Bontrager/shimano
> > equipped complete bicycle, PLEASE ask for no sustitutions. Any more
> > than the Toyota dealer wants you to ask for Contiental tires.
 
On Jul 4, 9:37 pm, Steve Gravrock <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 2007-07-05, Hank Wirtz <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 4, 7:23 pm, Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
> ><[email protected]> wrote:
> >> On Jul 4, 8:30 pm, Hank Wirtz wrote:
> >> > You just described the Trek Pilot 1.0.

>
> >> >http://www2.trekbikes.com/bikes/bike.php?bikeid=1402000&f=4

>
> >> Replace the carbon fiber composite fork and seat post with steel and
> >> aluminium alloy, the brifters with bar-ends and make the top tube
> >> horizontal and Trek would have it about right.

>
> > Why make the TT horizontal? The point of the upsloping top tube is to
> > get the bars higher.

>
> There are some folks on RBT who argue that sloping top tubes are an
> attempt by manufacturers to save money by putting people on smaller
> frames than normal and thus carry fewer sizes. The fact that Trek and
> its competitors obviously aren't doing that with bikes like the Pilot
> doesn't carry much weight.


When Giant first made them that exactly what was being done. It is
still what is being done by some(not Trek) frame makers. Remember you
get a sloping top tube two ways. The proper way by maintaining
standover and making the head tube longer and the poor way, by just
lowering the seat cluster and making some BS claim about weight and
stiffness.
>
> In a doubtless futile attempt to put a stop to that argument before it
> begins, I'll post a picture of my Pilot and a version that I edited to
> have a level top tube:
>
> <http://www.panix.com/~sdg/usenet/pilot-loaded.jpg>
> <http://www.panix.com/~sdg/usenet/pilot-level-top-tube.jpg>
>
> Note the long head tube extension required to get the same handlebar
> height with a level top tube.
>
> > I mean, all of my drop-bar bikes have horizontal TTs, but the one with
> > a threaded steerer has a Technomic stem, and the threadless ones have
> > uncut steerers and big stacks of spacers. Compact geometry allows you
> > to have high bars and lots of standover height. That's a good,
> > utilitarian thing.

>
> > Why don't you like it? Because you think it's ugly? Then you're as
> > much of a poseur as the overweight Microsoft Millionaires on $6000
> > Madones.

>
> It never ceases to amaze me how many people will deride others for
> buying a bike on the basis of fashion rather than practicality, then
> turn around and insist that function take a back seat to form.
>
> Besides, sloping and level top tubes look the same from the cockpit.
 
-snip-
Michael Press wrote:
> I see the mountain bicycles all over the city streets.
> They look ideal. Do bicycle store people ever ask
> their customers if the customer would like to exchange
> the full knobby tires for a slick urban tire?
>

(sigh) a tougher sale that you might think for a couple of dollars. Hard
to explain the benefits to your average $69 XMart MTB owner who wants
"Traction" whatever that is.

Maybe they all dream of someday flying that $69 bike off a muddy
mountain side as in television commercials ?

'Knobby' image sells. I give you as example those huge heavy vehicles,
seemingly designed for Paris-Dakar, mostly used to visit the local
Starbucks five blocks away.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
 
On Jul 5, 10:18 am, A Muzi <[email protected]> wrote:
> -snip-Michael Press wrote:
> > I see the mountain bicycles all over the city streets.
> > They look ideal. Do bicycle store people ever ask
> > their customers if the customer would like to exchange
> > the full knobby tires for a slick urban tire?

>
> (sigh) a tougher sale that you might think for a couple of dollars. Hard
> to explain the benefits to your average $69 XMart MTB owner who wants
> "Traction" whatever that is.
>
> Maybe they all dream of someday flying that $69 bike off a muddy
> mountain side as in television commercials ?
>
> 'Knobby' image sells. I give you as example those huge heavy vehicles,
> seemingly designed for Paris-Dakar, mostly used to visit the local
> Starbucks five blocks away.
>
> --
> Andrew Muziwww.yellowjersey.org
> Open every day since 1 April, 1971


OR the WRX Subarus, decked out with HUGE rear spoilers, like they are
ready for the next leg of the world rally championship....what a yuck.
 
>> Less finicky 8-speed drivetrain? Whom are you kidding? Have you worked in
>> a
>> shop? Shimano has made substantial improvements over the years to
>> shifting,
>> and newer 9-speed levers are much superior to anything they did with 8.
>> Perfect? No. But there is nothing to recommend an 8-speed drivetrain over
>> 9,
>> in terms of either durability or ease of shifting or setup.

>
> Well ya know Mike, I do work in a shop and 7400(DA 8s) and
> 6400(Ultegra 8s) STI was much more relaible than 9s. Square Taper BBs
> were much more reliable than Octalink and more available today(adios
> 6500/6503 BBs, STI). Setup was a wash..either was easy, much easier
> than shimano 10s BTW.


Our experiences differ. 8-speed DuraAce STI levers had a markedly-shorter
lifespan in the field than their 9-speed brethren. The 9-speeds often
suffered from DOA issues (not working out of the box), but overall
reliability, in terms of number of miles before requiring replacement,
greatly exceeded what we found with the 8-speed levers.

Regarding Octalink BBs, I have no idea where people get the idea or evidence
of massive failures. We have seen virtually zero over the years. Zilch.
Nada. Just doesn't happen. I don't know if people are installing cranks &
BBs incorrectly or if it's just one of those internet myths (that Octalink
failures are common).

I agree that 10-speed setup is pickier. Part of the issue may be the fact
that you cannot pre-stretch the cables (or, apparently more correctly,
pre-compress the housing) as you can with the others. Shimano has made the
lever such that you can only exert a certain amount of force past the last
click, and it's not enough to put much tension on the cable.

> I think the big deal is that some of these wunderbikes, as they get
> sold to great big cyclists, is that they are not going to be reliable,
> then the gent, after visiting the bike shop for the umpteenth time to
> get these light wheels trued, hangs his bike up and goes back to golf.
> I think the sales staff(untrained and poor as they are at most bike
> shops) is the issue, and the 15 pound bikes they sell to the wrong
> riders make the problem even worse. A bit of reality would be nice and
> if the bike doesn't fit and isn't appropriate, the sales grommet needs
> to say so.


Well, sort of. The reality is that a 15 (ok, 16 pound with pedals) bike can
be extraordinarily durable, much more so than a bike a few pounds heavier.
It needs not just light equipment, but the right equipment (which,
unfortunately, may bump the price *way* upward). Light & cheap... that's a
problem. Lightness for the sake of lightness... that's a problem. But if
someone is willing to pay for light *and* strong, it can be done. My present
bike is proof of that.

--Mike--
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com


"Qui si parla Campagnolo" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Jul 4, 8:49 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > There is nothing wrong with bicycle racing and racing bikes. However,
>> > it is silly to believe that a racing bicycle is the best choice for
>> > any use but racing or training for racing.

>>
>> > Unfortunately, due to marketing and hype, people want racing bicycles,
>> > when they would be better off on a road bicycle with a slightly longer
>> > wheelbase, clearance for reasonable tires (e.g. 28-mm width and
>> > fenders) and slightly higher handlebars (so the drops are more
>> > useable). A less finicky 8-speed drivetrain is plenty of ratios for
>> > 99% of non-racers (especially when combined with a triple crank).

>>
>> A bit longer wheelbase? Trek still uses 412mm chainstays, a good
>> half-centimeter longer than many, a full centimeter longer than some (and
>> good grief, there are even some running 395mm for reasons unfathomable).
>>
>> 28mm tires? You can fit those to the '08 Madone, or any of the Pilot
>> series,
>> which include carbon fiber as well as aluminum frames. Fenders? You can
>> run
>> fenders on an '08 Madone with a 25, but not a 28c tire. For any of the
>> Pilots, you can run fenders plus 28c, maybe even 32c.
>>
>> Higher bars? Again, the '08 Madone offers this (in the "Performance"
>> frame,
>> which is 30mm higher at the front end than the otherwise-identical "Pro"
>> version). And, again, any of the Pilot series.
>>
>> Less finicky 8-speed drivetrain? Whom are you kidding? Have you worked in
>> a
>> shop? Shimano has made substantial improvements over the years to
>> shifting,
>> and newer 9-speed levers are much superior to anything they did with 8.
>> Perfect? No. But there is nothing to recommend an 8-speed drivetrain over
>> 9,
>> in terms of either durability or ease of shifting or setup.

>
> Well ya know Mike, I do work in a shop and 7400(DA 8s) and
> 6400(Ultegra 8s) STI was much more relaible than 9s. Square Taper BBs
> were much more reliable than Octalink and more available today(adios
> 6500/6503 BBs, STI). Setup was a wash..either was easy, much easier
> than shimano 10s BTW.
>
> I won't argue
>> that 24 speeds isn't enough. But the less finicky part about 8-speed STI
>> drivetrains simply isn't true.
>>
>> > Yet, go into an LBS. How many road bikes like this will you find (and
>> > how many shop employees that understand why such bikes are desirable
>> > and better than racing bicycles for non racing use)?

>>
>> Guess it depends which shop you go into.
>>
>> Having said all that, I think you overstate the disadvantages to a
>> "racing"
>> bike. Beyond the ability to winterize one, a "racing" bike can provide a
>> fun, reliable, stable and efficient platform for perhaps the majority of
>> cyclists. Even credit-card touring is something that can be done on a
>> "racing" bike. And the way most people ride... fair-weather cyclists,
>> carrying nothing with them that won't fit in a jersey pocket or small
>> seat
>> pack... unless they're planning to ride on nasty roads, what's the big
>> deal?
>>
>> --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReactionBicycles.com

>
> I think the big deal is that some of these wunderbikes, as they get
> sold to great big cyclists, is that they are not going to be reliable,
> then the gent, after visiting the bike shop for the umpteenth time to
> get these light wheels trued, hangs his bike up and goes back to golf.
> I think the sales staff(untrained and poor as they are at most bike
> shops) is the issue, and the 15 pound bikes they sell to the wrong
> riders make the problem even worse. A bit of reality would be nice and
> if the bike doesn't fit and isn't appropriate, the sales grommet needs
> to say so.
>
 
> Gent has a 2006 Record triple group on his old steel bike. Wants the
> new Madone..this is not a fringe rider, Campagnolo sold many triple
> Record/Chorus/Centaur cranks and like me, may not want a plastic, made
> off shore triple crank in his new bike. Sooo, he'll trundle down the
> road and get a Specializedgiantscott instead.


Of course, you're avoiding the other question, which has come up several
times over the last couple of months in our shop. Customers wanting a Campy
triple that has their current top-end technology (and this for bikes with
standard BBs). Why did Campy choose to offer something different for their
doubles than their triples?

I'm not trying to sidetrack the conversation, but rather point out that
companies make decisions all the time that, internally, they feel makes
sense... but leave those of us on the outside scratching our heads,
wondering what they're thinking.

--Mike--
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com



"Qui si parla Campagnolo" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Jul 4, 8:57 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> Once you play with one, you'll wonder why it wasn't done years ago.
>> >> The
>> >> bearings literally drop in. No force. No special tools needed. Take
>> >> your
>> >> crankset out of the bike, replace the bearings, reinstall with only a
>> >> 5mm
>> >> allen tool (for a Shimano crank). 5 minutes, seriously. This
>> >> technology
>> >> will
>> >> likely migrate downward and laterally; I see it as an even bigger
>> >> advantage
>> >> for mountain bikes than for road.

>>
>> >> --Mike--
>> >> Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReaction.com

>>
>> > BUT I have always been chagrined about a frame maker that takes
>> > decisions away from the consumer. As long as a bicycle frame is
>> > something you hang components onto, it should be something that I can
>> > hang any component onto. Why when we order Waterfords, we still ask
>> > for DT shifter bosses and clamp on fders. Trek(and others like Cervelo
>> > and Pinarello) can point and talk about the superiority of this and
>> > that, it really means they want you to buy the Bontrager/shimano
>> > equipped complete bicycle, PLEASE ask for no sustitutions. Any more
>> > than the Toyota dealer wants you to ask for Contiental tires.

>>
>> I think you've answered your own question. Trek isn't producing the new
>> bikes for the very tiny subset of the market that wants to mix & match
>> without limitation. That's a legit market, but nothing Trek does with the
>> new Madone is going to threaten your ability to find framesets to serve
>> that
>> market.
>>
>> At least, since this is coming from Trek, one doesn't have to be
>> concerned
>> that five years down the road buyers will be hosed if the platform is
>> yanked
>> or Trek were to go out of business. As long as Trek is in business, they
>> support whatever product they've made in the past, sometimes to
>> extraordinary ends. If they were to go out of business, the sheer volume
>> of
>> product out there would make it very likely someone would step up to the
>> plate to provide parts for customers.
>>
>> But seriously, your comment about buying a Toyota with Continental tires
>> pretty much nails it. The main difference would be that many LBSs would
>> go
>> to some effort to try and accomodate a customer's request, if possible.
>> But
>> Trek themselves? They're on record stating that they intend to support
>> all
>> popular pipe-style cranks, including those not offered as an option on a
>> stock bike. But they're not going to go out of their way to encourage the
>> sort of thing that you (or sometimes I) do with mixing & matching a
>> complete
>> custom bike from the brand of spokes on up.

>
> Gent has a 2006 Record triple group on his old steel bike. Wants the
> new Madone..this is not a fringe rider, Campagnolo sold many triple
> Record/Chorus/Centaur cranks and like me, may not want a plastic, made
> off shore triple crank in his new bike. Sooo, he'll trundle down the
> road and get a Specializedgiantscott instead.
>>
>> --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReactionBicycles.com
>>
>> "Qui si parla Campagnolo" <[email protected]> wrote in
>> messagenews:[email protected]...
>>
>> > On Jul 3, 7:56 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> > Geez, what is the advantage, aside from saving a little weight
>> >> > (little
>> >> > enough so as not to be an actual issue to a recreational cyclist,
>> >> > which is where most of these will be sold), of eliminating a
>> >> > threaded
>> >> > interface that also accepts other BB designs?

>>
>> >> Once you play with one, you'll wonder why it wasn't done years ago.
>> >> The
>> >> bearings literally drop in. No force. No special tools needed. Take
>> >> your
>> >> crankset out of the bike, replace the bearings, reinstall with only a
>> >> 5mm
>> >> allen tool (for a Shimano crank). 5 minutes, seriously. This
>> >> technology
>> >> will
>> >> likely migrate downward and laterally; I see it as an even bigger
>> >> advantage
>> >> for mountain bikes than for road.

>>
>> >> --Mike--
>> >> Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReaction.com

>>
>> > BUT I have always been chagrined about a frame maker that takes
>> > decisions away from the consumer. As long as a bicycle frame is
>> > something you hang components onto, it should be something that I can
>> > hang any component onto. Why when we order Waterfords, we still ask
>> > for DT shifter bosses and clamp on fders. Trek(and others like Cervelo
>> > and Pinarello) can point and talk about the superiority of this and
>> > that, it really means they want you to buy the Bontrager/shimano
>> > equipped complete bicycle, PLEASE ask for no sustitutions. Any more
>> > than the Toyota dealer wants you to ask for Contiental tires.

>
>
 
On Jul 5, 12:01 am, Ryan Cousineau <[email protected]> wrote:

> But seriously folks, I see a lot of people arguing in this thread that
> the Trek Madone, explicitly designed and built as an all-out racing
> bike, wouldn't make a good touring bike or commuter.
>
> For heaven's sake, people! I don't even have a Trek catalog in front of
> me, and I can still say Pilot, Portland, XO-1, 520 and I'm sure more.
>
> What, do you go into MTB shops and whine that the Norco Shore Two is too
> heavy, has a major monkey-motion problem, and there's no place to mount
> your panniers??
>
> Bah. The Madone was designed to a purpose, and the very top model is
> designed to fulfill that purpose with cost and practicality as very
> second-order concerns.
>
>...


I would go further and argue that the racing bike makes the best
commuting bike in a dry climate.

Robert
 
On Jul 5, 12:39 pm, [email protected] wrote:

>
> I would go further and argue that the racing bike makes the best
> commuting bike in a dry climate.
>



Science says you're wrong. :)

But seriously, even if you're only riding on pavement, super-skinny
high-pressure tires won't be horribly comfortable. If you want to run
an errand on the way home, good luck carrying anything.

(I say that having ridden my new 18.5lb Guerciotti to a new PR this
morning, 1:02:57 for 17.6 miles with 2 big hills, beating last year's
1:03:30)

Unless you're late for work, it's hard to beat the good times of a
touring or cruiser kinda bike with fenders and racks.
 
On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 19:19:01 GMT, "Mike Jacoubowsky"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Regarding Octalink BBs, I have no idea where people get the idea or evidence
>of massive failures. We have seen virtually zero over the years. Zilch.
>Nada. Just doesn't happen. I don't know if people are installing cranks &
>BBs incorrectly or if it's just one of those internet myths (that Octalink
>failures are common).


I trashed a crankarm on an Octalink BB -- I think that's pretty easy
to do. They scare me a bit now, though I still use them.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
 
On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 12:39:10 -0700, [email protected] wrote:

>I would go further and argue that the racing bike makes the best
>commuting bike in a dry climate.


Depends on how far your commute it, but in dressy street clothes (say,
trousers and a blazer) a more upright position than on a racing bike
is better.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
 
On Jul 5, 1:23 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Gent has a 2006 Record triple group on his old steel bike. Wants the
> > new Madone..this is not a fringe rider, Campagnolo sold many triple
> > Record/Chorus/Centaur cranks and like me, may not want a plastic, made
> > off shore triple crank in his new bike. Sooo, he'll trundle down the
> > road and get a Specializedgiantscott instead.

>
> Of course, you're avoiding the other question, which has come up several
> times over the last couple of months in our shop. Customers wanting a Campy
> triple that has their current top-end technology (and this for bikes with
> standard BBs). Why did Campy choose to offer something different for their
> doubles than their triples?


Because they recognize that CT are popular and triples are less so. No
need to continue with so many sku's, from CT/standard/triple and they
probably recognize that the UT crank is market driven, certainly not
technology driven. But you dodge the question. Campagnolo makes a full
range of cranks that work with all their other stuff. It is Trek that
chooses to ignore a segment of the market. Don't expect Campagnolo to
make a crank so it works with a unique, one model, one manufature
frame, even if it is Trek(kneeling and bowing).
>
> I'm not trying to sidetrack the conversation, but rather point out that
> companies make decisions all the time that, internally, they feel makes
> sense... but leave those of us on the outside scratching our heads,
> wondering what they're thinking.


Ya can say that twice. i recognize you have to defend this new frame,
I don't.
>
> --Mike--
> Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReaction.com
>
> "Qui si parla Campagnolo" <[email protected]> wrote in messagenews:[email protected]...
>
> > On Jul 4, 8:57 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >> Once you play with one, you'll wonder why it wasn't done years ago.
> >> >> The
> >> >> bearings literally drop in. No force. No special tools needed. Take
> >> >> your
> >> >> crankset out of the bike, replace the bearings, reinstall with only a
> >> >> 5mm
> >> >> allen tool (for a Shimano crank). 5 minutes, seriously. This
> >> >> technology
> >> >> will
> >> >> likely migrate downward and laterally; I see it as an even bigger
> >> >> advantage
> >> >> for mountain bikes than for road.

>
> >> >> --Mike--
> >> >> Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReaction.com

>
> >> > BUT I have always been chagrined about a frame maker that takes
> >> > decisions away from the consumer. As long as a bicycle frame is
> >> > something you hang components onto, it should be something that I can
> >> > hang any component onto. Why when we order Waterfords, we still ask
> >> > for DT shifter bosses and clamp on fders. Trek(and others like Cervelo
> >> > and Pinarello) can point and talk about the superiority of this and
> >> > that, it really means they want you to buy the Bontrager/shimano
> >> > equipped complete bicycle, PLEASE ask for no sustitutions. Any more
> >> > than the Toyota dealer wants you to ask for Contiental tires.

>
> >> I think you've answered your own question. Trek isn't producing the new
> >> bikes for the very tiny subset of the market that wants to mix & match
> >> without limitation. That's a legit market, but nothing Trek does with the
> >> new Madone is going to threaten your ability to find framesets to serve
> >> that
> >> market.

>
> >> At least, since this is coming from Trek, one doesn't have to be
> >> concerned
> >> that five years down the road buyers will be hosed if the platform is
> >> yanked
> >> or Trek were to go out of business. As long as Trek is in business, they
> >> support whatever product they've made in the past, sometimes to
> >> extraordinary ends. If they were to go out of business, the sheer volume
> >> of
> >> product out there would make it very likely someone would step up to the
> >> plate to provide parts for customers.

>
> >> But seriously, your comment about buying a Toyota with Continental tires
> >> pretty much nails it. The main difference would be that many LBSs would
> >> go
> >> to some effort to try and accomodate a customer's request, if possible.
> >> But
> >> Trek themselves? They're on record stating that they intend to support
> >> all
> >> popular pipe-style cranks, including those not offered as an option on a
> >> stock bike. But they're not going to go out of their way to encourage the
> >> sort of thing that you (or sometimes I) do with mixing & matching a
> >> complete
> >> custom bike from the brand of spokes on up.

>
> > Gent has a 2006 Record triple group on his old steel bike. Wants the
> > new Madone..this is not a fringe rider, Campagnolo sold many triple
> > Record/Chorus/Centaur cranks and like me, may not want a plastic, made
> > off shore triple crank in his new bike. Sooo, he'll trundle down the
> > road and get a Specializedgiantscott instead.

>
> >> --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReactionBicycles.com

>
> >> "Qui si parla Campagnolo" <[email protected]> wrote in
> >> messagenews:[email protected]...

>
> >> > On Jul 3, 7:56 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >> > Geez, what is the advantage, aside from saving a little weight
> >> >> > (little
> >> >> > enough so as not to be an actual issue to a recreational cyclist,
> >> >> > which is where most of these will be sold), of eliminating a
> >> >> > threaded
> >> >> > interface that also accepts other BB designs?

>
> >> >> Once you play with one, you'll wonder why it wasn't done years ago.
> >> >> The
> >> >> bearings literally drop in. No force. No special tools needed. Take
> >> >> your
> >> >> crankset out of the bike, replace the bearings, reinstall with only a
> >> >> 5mm
> >> >> allen tool (for a Shimano crank). 5 minutes, seriously. This
> >> >> technology
> >> >> will
> >> >> likely migrate downward and laterally; I see it as an even bigger
> >> >> advantage
> >> >> for mountain bikes than for road.

>
> >> >> --Mike--
> >> >> Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReaction.com

>
> >> > BUT I have always been chagrined about a frame maker that takes
> >> > decisions away from the consumer. As long as a bicycle frame is
> >> > something you hang components onto, it should be something that I can
> >> > hang any component onto. Why when we order Waterfords, we still ask
> >> > for DT shifter bosses and clamp on fders. Trek(and others like Cervelo
> >> > and Pinarello) can point and talk about the superiority of this and
> >> > that, it really means they want you to buy the Bontrager/shimano
> >> > equipped complete bicycle, PLEASE ask for no sustitutions. Any more
> >> > than the Toyota dealer wants you to ask for Contiental tires.
 
>>Regarding Octalink BBs, I have no idea where people get the idea or
>>evidence
>>of massive failures. We have seen virtually zero over the years. Zilch.
>>Nada. Just doesn't happen. I don't know if people are installing cranks &
>>BBs incorrectly or if it's just one of those internet myths (that Octalink
>>failures are common).

>
> I trashed a crankarm on an Octalink BB -- I think that's pretty easy
> to do. They scare me a bit now, though I still use them.


During use or installation?

--Mike--
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
"John Forrest Tomlinson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 19:19:01 GMT, "Mike Jacoubowsky"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Regarding Octalink BBs, I have no idea where people get the idea or
>>evidence
>>of massive failures. We have seen virtually zero over the years. Zilch.
>>Nada. Just doesn't happen. I don't know if people are installing cranks &
>>BBs incorrectly or if it's just one of those internet myths (that Octalink
>>failures are common).

>
> I trashed a crankarm on an Octalink BB -- I think that's pretty easy
> to do. They scare me a bit now, though I still use them.
> --
> JT
> ****************************
> Remove "remove" to reply
> Visit http://www.jt10000.com
> ****************************
 
On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 23:58:02 GMT, "Mike Jacoubowsky"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>>>Regarding Octalink BBs, I have no idea where people get the idea or
>>>evidence
>>>of massive failures. We have seen virtually zero over the years. Zilch.
>>>Nada. Just doesn't happen. I don't know if people are installing cranks &
>>>BBs incorrectly or if it's just one of those internet myths (that Octalink
>>>failures are common).

>>
>> I trashed a crankarm on an Octalink BB -- I think that's pretty easy
>> to do. They scare me a bit now, though I still use them.

>
>During use or installation?


Sorry, I wasn't clear. I meant during installation. They scare me.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
 
On Jul 4, 10:01 pm, Hank Wirtz wrote:
> On Jul 4, 7:23 pm, Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:
> > On Jul 4, 8:30 pm, Hank Wirtz wrote:

>
> > > On Jul 4, 1:25 pm, Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:
> > > > On Jul 4, 8:17 am, John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:

>
> > > > > On Tue, 03 Jul 2007 18:49:41 -0700, "Ozark Bicycle" wrote:
> > > > > >You're right! That's very important to the members of Team Wannabe.

>
> > > > > What is it that causes you to have such an obsession with "wannabes"?
> > > > > Were you one? Or were you a "nevercould" or something?

>
> > > > > Please, show us a picture of you and your bike.

>
> > > > There is nothing wrong with bicycle racing and racing bikes. However,
> > > > it is silly to believe that a racing bicycle is the best choice for
> > > > any use but racing or training for racing.

>
> > > > Unfortunately, due to marketing and hype, people want racing bicycles,
> > > > when they would be better off on a road bicycle with a slightly longer
> > > > wheelbase, clearance for reasonable tires (e.g. 28-mm width and
> > > > fenders) and slightly higher handlebars (so the drops are more
> > > > useable). A less finicky 8-speed drivetrain is plenty of ratios for
> > > > 99% of non-racers (especially when combined with a triple crank).

>
> > > > Yet, go into an LBS. How many road bikes like this will you find (and
> > > > how many shop employees that understand why such bikes are desirable
> > > > and better than racing bicycles for non racing use)?

>
> > > > --

>
> > > You just described the Trek Pilot 1.0.

>
> > >http://www2.trekbikes.com/bikes/bike.php?bikeid=1402000&f=4

>
> > Replace the carbon fiber composite fork and seat post with steel and
> > aluminium alloy, the brifters with bar-ends and make the top tube
> > horizontal and Trek would have it about right.

>
> Why make the TT horizontal? The point of the upsloping top tube is to
> get the bars higher.
>
> I mean, all of my drop-bar bikes have horizontal TTs, but the one with
> a threaded steerer has a Technomic stem, and the threadless ones have
> uncut steerers and big stacks of spacers. Compact geometry allows you
> to have high bars and lots of standover height. That's a good,
> utilitarian thing.
>
> Why don't you like it? Because you think it's ugly? Then you're as
> much of a poseur as the overweight Microsoft Millionaires on $6000
> Madones.


Stand-over height is overrated for road riding [1] (off-road is a
different story, where unplanned dismounts on uneven terrain are
common (at least for putzers like me).

Finding compact geometry ugly is a matter of exquisite esthetic
judgment and has nothing to do with being a poseur - this is simple
logic.

Having the "Rivendell [2] look" for the sake of appearances is as much
as being a poseur as wearing a professional team jersey while riding a
team replica bike.

[1] However, I do have over 2 feet of clearance to the frame when
standing over my normal road riding bike.
[2] "riverdwell" for gene

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful
 
On Jul 5, 1:02 am, Michael Warner wrote:
> ...
> I don't own a mountain bike, but I'm told that disc brakes are
> significantly better in the wet (as cantilevers are over rim brakes).


Rim brakes are horrible if you unintentionally run through a muddy
spot when riding off-road. :(

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful
 
On Jul 5, 1:05 am, Michael Press wrote:
> ...
> And the nine-speed down tube click shifter has it all
> over friction shifting, to which the click shifter can
> be transformed in an instant.


I wish someone made either 8-speed thumb shifters or twist-shifters
with a friction mode, as it is very easy to knock a derailleur out of
adjustment while riding off-road.

The Shimano indexed bar-ends with optional friction mode are the best
things Shimano makes.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful
 
On Jul 5, 1:01 am, Ryan Cousineau wrote:
> ...
> But seriously folks, I see a lot of people arguing in this thread that
> the Trek Madone, explicitly designed and built as an all-out racing
> bike, wouldn't make a good touring bike or commuter....


I have seen a lot of non-racers on high-end Trek racing bicycles
(particularly the US Postal replicas). These people would be better
served by bike like this:
<http://www.waterfordbikes.com/images/rst/RST-22rcs.jpg>. The
Waterford even costs less, but includes custom geometry.

> ...
> I mean, it's cool that you don't want one, but please understand: you
> were never going to buy one, no matter what. Ergo, nobody should care
> what you think.


Ask yourself this: WWJR [1]?

[1] What Would Jobst Ride?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful
 

Similar threads

B
Replies
2
Views
326
B